Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar vs State through P.S.O.P.S. Washim City — 88/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 482. Disposed: Contested--BAIL REFUSED on 30th March 2026.
Cri.Bail Appln. - Bail Application
CNR: MHWS010003032026
e-Filing Number
13-03-2026
Filing Number
172/2026
Filing Date
13-03-2026
Registration No
88/2026
Registration Date
16-03-2026
Court
District and Sessions Court, Washim
Judge
6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Decision Date
30th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--BAIL REFUSED
FIR Details
FIR Number
981
Police Station
WASHIM CITY
Year
2025
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar
Adv. GAWALI VISHNU JAGANNATH
Respondent(s)
State through P.S.O.P.S. Washim City
Hearing History
Judge: 6-District Judge-1 and ASJ, Washim
Disposed
Hearing
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 25-03-2026 | Hearing |
| 24-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 23-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 20-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar v. State (88/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, rejected Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar's anticipatory bail application on 30/03/2026. The applicant was accused of falsely identifying a property vendor before the Sub Registrar, enabling execution of a fraudulent sale deed for a disputed plot that was sold four times between August-November 2025 through forgery. The court found his role "major at par with vendor and vendee" and held this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail given the serious nature of offences (including Section 338 BNS punishable with life imprisonment) and evidence of conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar v. State (88/2026) The Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, rejected Akshay Gajanan Amaravatkar's anticipatory bail application on 30/03/2026. The applicant was accused of falsely identifying a property vendor before the Sub Registrar, enabling execution of a fraudulent sale deed for a disputed plot that was sold four times between August-November 2025 through forgery. The court found his role "major at par with vendor and vendee" and held this was not a fit case for anticipatory bail given the serious nature of offences (including Section 338 BNS punishable with life imprisonment) and evidence of conspiracy. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts